Tokyo 2016 Recommended By Joc

[Faster]

it did get farthr then other cities like it overall in the race,but had it been Tokyo, the result most likely would have been better (probably not extremely much in a race like 2008) but still better

Not, the other Asian city was going on in the first round no matter what, those games were going to Beijing come hell or high water and no other Asian city with a superior bid was getting in the way.

[SOlympiadsW]

Not, the other Asian city was going on in the first round no matter what, those games were going to Beijing come hell or high water and no other Asian city with a superior bid was getting in the way.

nah Tokyo would have gotten farther, not much, but still farther

[Faster]

Osaka is not some second-rate village of 1000, its a major metropolitan area in Japan that is apart of the Kyoto-Kobe-Osaka corridor. It would also not have the land, constructure, density, and people problems of Tokyo, not to mention it has a fair bit of infrastructure already and the largest convention centre in Japan. Also by all accounts in ranking the bids, Osaka was 2nd, behind Toronto and infront of Paris.

[SOlympiadsW]

Osaka is not some second-rate village of 1000, its a major metropolitan area in Japan that is apart of the Kyoto-Kobe-Osaka corridor. It would also not have the land, constructure, density, and people problems of Tokyo, not to mention it has a fair bit of infrastructure already and the largest convention centre in Japan. Also by all accounts in ranking the bids, Osaka was 2nd, behind Toronto and infront of Paris.

I never said it was....you are exagerating and spinning what I am saying...being a second rate city (meaning not the main one) does not mean it is a "village" (you are the only one sasying that) and does not mean that they are incapable of hosting (again you are the only one saying that)...but having that name that everyone recognizes immediately (and that can be said about most second rate city, as well) is what the IOC is aiming for....Fukuoka (unlike Osaka and Tokyo) does NOT fit that description, and when up against Tokyo will not be chosen for that very reason....and there is nothing wrong with this pattern, as long as the IOC doesn't only go to world capitals, and goes for the second rate cities of nations, as well which they have in the past and will probably do for 2016

[Athensfan]

Right now we're all looking at the two primary contenders as Japan and the U.S.

Japan's biggest liability: Pyeongchang 2014. The U.S. ought to throw all their weight behind PC if they're serious about winning 2016. That is the best way to decrease the odds of a Japanese victory. A Los Angeles bid only makes sense to me if PC wins 2014. Otherwise, it could be blown out of the water by either Tokyo or Fukuoka. Even if PC wins, LA will have a VERY difficult time convincing the IOC to return so soon. Without PC, forget it. This is why I think it's unlikely that the USOC will ultimately invest in an LA bid for 2016.

If Chicago or SF can get their acts together with classy stadiums and full government support, both stand a good chance against Tokyo or Fukuoka. One of Japan's biggest assets is that it's not the United States. Anybody interested in putting the USofA in its place has a perfect candidate to support. That's why I think Fukuoka is capable of winning against any US candidate (especially LA). Tokyo is probably more capable, but Fukuoka ain't chopped liver.

Of course there is a danger in approaching this as a two horse race. We're going to have two mega-cities hosting back to back in 2008 and 2012. What if the IOC is in the mood to try something a little more unusual.... i.e. Istanbul, Rio? If Japan and the US start looking too predictable with Tokyo and LA, maybe it will make it more possible for somebody else to sneak in. (Provided that somebody else has a really hot bid.) Just a thought.